1 CGHC010388342022 2026:CGHC:34188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5211 of 2022 1 - Shri Ram Thakur S/o Late Shri Sarwan Thakur Aged About 53 Years Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division-Durg, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through-Its Commissioner, Sector- 19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Dasrath Kumar Verma R/o Verma Cement Art, Deopuri, Behind Agrasen Tractor Trolly, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 5278 of 2022 1 - Shri Ram Thakur S/o Late Shri Sarwan Thakur Aged About 53 Years Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division- Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through- Its Commissioner, Sector- 19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dasrath Kumar Verma R/o Verma Cement Art, Deopuri, Behind Agrasen Tractor Trolly,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Kaustubh Singh Thakur appears on behalf of Shri Sharad Mishra, Advocates. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.07 10:18:01 +0530 2 05/08/2026 1. Since grievance of the petitioner in both the writ petitions in one and the same, they have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. WPC No.5211 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar in Complaint case No.C/633/2020 by which, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner/Public Information Officer by invoking Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. WPC No.5278 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar in Complaint case No.C/634/2020 by which, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner/Public Information Officer by invoking Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division–Durg, and has discharged his duties with sincerity and integrity. No complaint had ever been made against him during his service. Respondent No. 2 submitted an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information relating to an agreement, Measurement Book (MB), and payment vouchers. Since the application was vague and did not specify the records sought, the petitioner, acting as the Public Information Officer, replied on 20.08.2019 stating that the information could not be furnished without proper particulars. Aggrieved by the said reply, Respondent No. 2 preferred a first appeal. By order dated 17.09.2019, the Appellate Authority directed that the requested 3 information be supplied. The information sought pertained to a contract awarded to Respondent No. 2 for supplying water through tankers at Deendayal Colony, Saddu, Raipur. As the records were connected with Case No. 15/2019 pending before the Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, the petitioner sought necessary guidance and approval from the Head Office of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board before disclosing the information. Owing to the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings and the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown, the information could not be supplied immediately. After obtaining the requisite approval, the petitioner furnished the information to Respondent No. 2. During this period, Respondent No. 2 also filed a complaint before Respondent No. 1. In the proceedings, Respondent No. 2 admitted having received the requested information, and the petitioner explained the reasons for the delay through his application dated 04.08.2022. Despite recording that the information had ultimately been supplied, Respondent No. 1, by order dated 04.08.2022, instead of issuing a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act, directly imposed a penalty of 25,000 upon the ₹ petitioner solely on the ground of delay in furnishing the information. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order imposing the penalty without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the RTI Act and without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that there is violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. He submits 4 that ingredients of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act were not satisfied before imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2 would support the impugned order and would submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed and there is no illegality in the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, particularly the impugned orders. A perusal thereof reveals that although the State Information Commission proposed issuance of a show cause notice, it ultimately proceeded to impose the penalty directly without first issuing such notice and without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to explain the alleged delay. The procedure adopted is contrary to the mandate of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be afforded before any penalty is imposed. 9. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Complaint Case Nos. C/633/2020 and C/634/2020 are hereby set aside. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash